Human Centipede II banned in the UK

[Neil]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49927

[AcesandEights]

It's already in the can? Guess the writer didn't leave too much for polishing on this project. It's also interesting how self-referential the project seems to be.

[MinionZombie]

However, Freaks, TCM, and The Exorcist were all unbanned - and don't involve sexual violence ... ... although you could argue with the crucifix thing in the latter, heh.

By the sounds of it, it's hardly surprising - it's very rare indeed for a film to be banned outright nowadays at the BBFC. The last one I remember was "Grotesque", IIRC, some Asian torture porn movie or something, and by the sounds of it there seems to be similar reasons between the two films for the banning. Sexual violence is always a tricky area at the BBFC, and if it involves arousal then it's a big old problem for them ... and then if the victims are just objects, then you've got no hope.

The first movie is only "meh", personally ... more shock than content or purpose. The best thing about it was the maniac Doctor, and a nice look to the film, but other than that it was pointless and pretentious ... all mouth and no trousers.

[JDFP]

I know my fellow British brothers and sisters here don't have a Constitution per se (it's more lika a verbal traditional thing if I understand it correctly, but British law confuses the piss out of me) but how does "banning" a film not break Freedom of Speech that you all supposedly have as well? Or does the British only have Freedom of Speech in so much that it's by the fiat of the government?

Sure, we have films here in the U.S. that are 'blocked' as far as certain Americans (namely minors) are able to see, but I couldn't imagine a film actually being outright completely banned. If anything, it would cause it to be one of the most popular films of the year for that very reason because of the taboo nature of it. I'd think most Americans I know would laugh over something being classified as "banned".

j.p.

[MoonSylver]

It's already in the can? Guess the writer didn't leave too much for polishing on this project. It's also interesting how self-referential the project seems to be.

#1------------#2--------#3
That's what she^, and she^said? :rockbrow: ;) :barf:


all mouth and no trousers.

Or all mouth, & mouth, & mouth & no trousers? :rockbrow: :lol:

Just what the world needed, The Human Centipede II.http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/yuck.gif I'm sure "A Serbain Film II" won't be far behind.http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/thumbsdown.gif


won't be far behind.

That's what he & she said? :lol:

[acealive1]

reminds me of Constantine being banned in most of the middle east for giving a too accurate depiction of hell.

[Neil]

giving a too accurate depiction of hell.
Slight contradiction in terms IMHO...

[shootemindehead]

I know my fellow British brothers and sisters here don't have a Constitution per se (it's more lika a verbal traditional thing if I understand it correctly, but British law confuses the piss out of me) but how does "banning" a film not break Freedom of Speech that you all supposedly have as well? Or does the British only have Freedom of Speech in so much that it's by the fiat of the government?

Sure, we have films here in the U.S. that are 'blocked' as far as certain Americans (namely minors) are able to see, but I couldn't imagine a film actually being outright completely banned. If anything, it would cause it to be one of the most popular films of the year for that very reason because of the taboo nature of it. I'd think most Americans I know would laugh over something being classified as "banned".

j.p.

There's nothing enshrined in British law about "freedom of speech" JD. Britain doesn't have the same 1st amendment building blocks that the US does and in the case of film, Britain has a long and somewhat embarrassing history of banning and cutting. No offence to the Brit lads and lassies on here.

I'm old enough to remember the "Video Nasties" nonsense from the early 80's which led to the 1984 video recordings act and plummeted horror video into an abyss of mediocrity that has only, in the last 10 years or so, been eroded. Mainly because any movie that a viewer wants to see uncut can be purchased at a click of a button. So, banning a film has become a bit rediculous.

The "forbidden fruit" argument that you posit is correct too. The 72 films on the UK banned list became like a checklist for horror fans and gave these (quite often awful movies) a longer life than would have been the case otherwise. I remember personally spending years trying to track down an uncut copy of 'Zombie Flesh Eaters'.

I understand that there may be some queasiness about films like 'I spit on your grave' and 'The Beast in Heat', but some of the films that ended up being banned had no business being there, like the German/Polish arthouse movie 'Possessed', or the frankly harmless 'The Burning'.

I recently watched a good documentary on the "video Nasty" period called 'Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide', which went into the history of this bizarre sequence of events. Very entertaining, but somewhat disturbing insight into self-appointed conservative moral makers.

[acealive1]

Slight contradiction in terms IMHO...

im just going by what i heard. lol. they only put on screen what people have always said "hell is a city"

[MinionZombie]

However, individual councils can show a banned film if they want - the BBFC bans it from sale and distribution in the UK - like on store shelves - but councils could show it on their own if they want (and likewise individual councils can ban a film on their patch, that has been passed 18 Uncut by the BBFC for nationwide sale and distribution).

It does indeed make it more intriguing - the banning of it - but I'm sure that doesn't change it being a pompous load of old bollocks like the first movie, only much more pompous.

[ZombieKeeper]

Watch, this will end up being nothing other than a publicity stunt :-)

[MinionZombie]

Watch, this will end up being nothing other than a publicity stunt :-)

Erm, highly unlikely. The BBFC is an official body and they wouldn't get involved in such a stunt. However, Eureka! (the company distributing the film) are appealing the ban - not sure how far they'll get, mind you, what with all this apparent razorblade rape, sandpaper wanking, and victims who are merely objects.

[SymphonicX]

However, Freaks, TCM, and The Exorcist were all unbanned - and don't involve sexual violence ... ... although you could argue with the crucifix thing in the latter, heh.

By the sounds of it, it's hardly surprising - it's very rare indeed for a film to be banned outright nowadays at the BBFC. The last one I remember was "Grotesque", IIRC, some Asian torture porn movie or something, and by the sounds of it there seems to be similar reasons between the two films for the banning. Sexual violence is always a tricky area at the BBFC, and if it involves arousal then it's a big old problem for them ... and then if the victims are just objects, then you've got no hope.

The first movie is only "meh", personally ... more shock than content or purpose. The best thing about it was the maniac Doctor, and a nice look to the film, but other than that it was pointless and pretentious ... all mouth and no trousers.


I agree 100% - I actually just watched Grotesque - and I can see wholeheartedly why that and the HC2 are banned. If HC2 is anything remotely like Grotesque, then they are saving your time by banning it. Grotestque started out with a shot of a couple walking into a tunnel, a guy gets out, hammers them over the head, and they wake up on in a torture chamber. From there its 90 minutes of ridiculous sexual and physical torture with absolutely NO narrative or point to it whatsoever. They banned it because it was "torture for its own sake". I agree - if there's no reason to understand what's happening, no rationale, no narrative, then there's no point. It didn't tell a story, in the same way a pron video won't tell a story. It just starts, then it ends.

There was a flash of genius in the middle of the movie, but just a tiny, tiny flash. It provides the viewer with about 2% of the detail it needs to actually be considered even a shitty low budget horror movie. It's not - its just Gorn, as it's come to be known.

As for the HC2, I imagine it's just the same as that - a guy kidnaps a bunch of people, and we just watch them feeding off the other's shit for 2 hours. I never used to agree with BBFC bannings - but you know what, in these two cases I do. Not so much because of the risk to minors, although that's a factor, it's just saving people's time, effort, and money investing in such a terrible, pointless escapade into violence.

Now if you look back on banned movies - by and large most of them are turgid shite. The Excorcist, as much as I despise that movie, at least was intelligent, thought provoking, intense....gimmie that over Nekromatic any day. To my knowledge that really was the only intelligent movie to be banned (The Excorcist), A Clockwork Orange WASN'T banned (it just wasn't released by Kubrick). Oh Texas Chainsaw was amazing, and banned...forgot about that one...I think as soon as the BBFC started to look at the bigger picture ie: the narrative constructed around a violent movie, that they really started being a lot more rational about their censorship.

-- -------- Post added at 08:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 AM ----------

But then there was the controversial A Serbian Film - which to be honest I had on a memory stick not two weeks ago - but I deleted it because to be perfectly frank, I couldn't bring myself to watch that movie. Although I'm told there is a strong narrative reason for what happens in that movie - I just don't want to see it. I won't go into details, for the sake of this boards innocence - it's got a truly fucking sick pay off to the whole thing.

[MinionZombie]

I agree 100% - I actually just watched Grotesque - and I can see wholeheartedly why that and the HC2 are banned. If HC2 is anything remotely like Grotesque, then they are saving your time by banning it. Grotestque started out with a shot of a couple walking into a tunnel, a guy gets out, hammers them over the head, and they wake up on in a torture chamber. From there its 90 minutes of ridiculous sexual and physical torture with absolutely NO narrative or point to it whatsoever. They banned it because it was "torture for its own sake". I agree - if there's no reason to understand what's happening, no rationale, no narrative, then there's no point. It didn't tell a story, in the same way a pron video won't tell a story. It just starts, then it ends.

There was a flash of genius in the middle of the movie, but just a tiny, tiny flash. It provides the viewer with about 2% of the detail it needs to actually be considered even a shitty low budget horror movie. It's not - its just Gorn, as it's come to be known.

As for the HC2, I imagine it's just the same as that - a guy kidnaps a bunch of people, and we just watch them feeding off the other's shit for 2 hours. I never used to agree with BBFC bannings - but you know what, in these two cases I do. Not so much because of the risk to minors, although that's a factor, it's just saving people's time, effort, and money investing in such a terrible, pointless escapade into violence.

Now if you look back on banned movies - by and large most of them are turgid shite. The Excorcist, as much as I despise that movie, at least was intelligent, thought provoking, intense....gimmie that over Nekromatic any day. To my knowledge that really was the only intelligent movie to be banned (The Excorcist), A Clockwork Orange WASN'T banned (it just wasn't released by Kubrick). Oh Texas Chainsaw was amazing, and banned...forgot about that one...I think as soon as the BBFC started to look at the bigger picture ie: the narrative constructed around a violent movie, that they really started being a lot more rational about their censorship.

-- -------- Post added at 08:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 AM ----------

But then there was the controversial A Serbian Film - which to be honest I had on a memory stick not two weeks ago - but I deleted it because to be perfectly frank, I couldn't bring myself to watch that movie. Although I'm told there is a strong narrative reason for what happens in that movie - I just don't want to see it. I won't go into details, for the sake of this boards innocence - it's got a truly fucking sick pay off to the whole thing.

Indeed - there are still some out there who believe the BBFC is some dictatorship, but since 1999 they've become something entirely different to what they were during the 1980s - which was a ridiculous time for horror movies, and not just because of the BBFC, but because of legislation, MPs (from all sides of the house with hardly, if any, dissenting voices supporting the banned flicks), and a moral panic instigated by tabloid papers looking to flog some dead trees ... ... we've come a long way since then. Bans are extremely rare these days, and censorship is extremely rare too - oftentimes it's usually at the behest of the distributors and for something minor (e.g. 2 seconds from The Expendables for one knife stab to get a 15 rather than an 18 ... or a couple of re-framed photos from The Hangover 2's end credits to get a 15 and not an 18), but the BBFC themselves have their heads screwed on.

Now, the debate continues about whether or not a pointless load of old violence (such as Grotesque, as you mentioned), should be allowed in for people to make up their own minds - that's a whole other thing I'm not interested in getting into, but judging from the description and reasoning behind the ban, I'm hardly surprised they did. There was miniscule characterisation in the first Human Centipede as it was (and they weren't particularly likeable characters either), so if the second has sod all, and goes running into the world of sexual violence, then I'm hardly surprised.

Interestingly, with that 'Extreme Porn' legislation that Labour barged through when they were still in government, some have pondered whether if you'd be liable for a spanking by the law for possessing THC2 ... but then considering it's primary purpose isn't for sexual arousal, you'd probably be alright ... although what the primary purpose of THC2 is, I really don't know.

Interesting that you mention A Serbian Film - I too have no interest in seeing that movie. The first time I read the description of the film, including what was cut by the BBFC, I genuinely felt depressed afterwards ... I felt dirty just reading the description. Then seeing relatively modest pictoral representations of the cuts on Movie Censorship further compounding my lack of want in seeing this flick. I don't see how gross sexual violence (sometimes involving children) translates to a biting critique of Serbian politics - and it certainly doesn't bring the debate around to such things, because the debate only ends up being about the sexual violence within the film. A documentary directly about the horrors of Serbia's past and present would have actually gotten the media talking about the important issue.

I remember when I was a teenager, my idea to become a filmmaker was "make the most disgusting film ever and ride the controversy" - but it was just that, the moronic half-baked insta-thought of a teenager ... however, it seems some filmmakers much older (and surely, by default even, wiser) still possess such a train of thought.

[Andy]

Lets be honest MZ, anyone who gets turned on watching the human centipede 2 probably does need punishing :lol:

[shootemindehead]

I actually thought that 'The Human Centipede' was an Ok film. Nothing special. It's concept far outweighed the content and I honestly don't know what all the fuss was about.

I haven't heard anything about the sequel, so will reserve judgment on that and haven't seen, nor particularly want to see 'Grotesque' or 'A Serbian Film', which I've heard is tough going. But, I've also heard it lauded in some quarters as a fine critique on the "darker" side of Serbia. Which, I suspect is a load of old bollocks, in the same vein as Pasolini's 'Salo: 120 Days of Sodom' was supposed to be about fascism. Bunkum, of course, as there is no real coherent comment on fascism inherent in shots of people eating shit.

Incidentally, Passolini's film fell foul of the BBFC too in the 70's.

However, I remain opposed to the banning of such films and am unconvinced that it does anything at all for the "protection" of anyone. In fact, as I stated earlier, it'll more than likely elongate the shelf life of poor movies than anything else.

[MinionZombie]

Well no doubt there'll be a bunch of extra downloads to see THC2 - although as they'll be illegal downloads, the makers won't see shit in terms of money from it :elol: - so it kinda works against it in a way, but it's always the way. You say "you can't have this", and you immediately want it (usually). I'm on the fence really. I can understand why it ran foul, but I'm also sketchy about banning stuff, even if it is a load of pretentious bullshit with a dose of controversy magnet thrown in ... and to, as has been said, let it sink on it's own (lack of) merits.

[SymphonicX]

God we're all such rational and functioning human beings, we should be in government.
Rarely do you see a bunch of people with their heads screwed on as much as us lot - I agree with pretty much 100% of everything that's been said here.

With regards to A Serbian Film - I saw that scene that it's famous for. A guy shagging a Tiny Tears isn't really that horrific, but the idea is clearly abhorrent and not worth justifying a full watch for me...I saw literally about 3 seconds...

[krakenslayer]

With regards the UK and freedom of speech: FoS, in British law, really only refers to political, rather than creative, freedom of speech. In other words, you are free to criticise the government and have a legal right to protest, but this does not necessarily extend to things like "obscenity" in film. It's a matter of priority: in the US FoS is given precedence over other concerns, whereas in the UK The question of "harm"takes precedence. Of course, it is pretty patronizing to say that a large enough number of responsible adults would be "harmed" by watching a film like Human Centipede 2 to justify banning it, but the critical (and unfortunate) point is that this kind of censorship actually has popular support in the UK. Yes, you won't meet many cinephiles who support it, but your average gran on the street who reads the trash tabloids, which will no-doubt be having a field day over the "sick shocker" banned by the BBFC, will fully support the ban. Yes, we are a democracy, and yes we could have full freedom of speech if the people really wanted it, but sadly we'll never get it thanks to the likes of Rupert Murdoch and the millions of shit-fed proles who buy into their hypocritical brand of morality.

[SymphonicX]

I dunno, I'm a cinephile and a movie lover and I defo support the ban on this product. For me its more a question of taste vs value

[krakenslayer]

But actively banning it from sale is a heavy-handed, overbearing act for a government-related body to take, I think.

[shootemindehead]

I dunno, I'm a cinephile and a movie lover and I defo support the ban on this product. For me its more a question of taste vs value

But, who are you to regulate "taste" ?

What if something you found within your taste was banned? Your perspective would be very different.

[AcesandEights]

But, who are you to regulate "taste" ?

What if something you found within your taste was banned? Your perspective would be very different.

I'll cogitate on this for a while.

http://nc423.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/thinker.jpg

[shootemindehead]

It's been 2 hours Aces...Com'on!!!!!!!!

[MoonSylver]

Shhhh! Don't monkey with a great man when he's thinking! :lol:

[AcesandEights]

It's been 2 hours Aces...Com'on!!!!!!!!

These things take time, but if you must have an answer....let's see...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3lB-7i1kEh4/TEcwJCYW1VI/AAAAAAAABYk/OQnM062weNM/s1600/magic8ball.jpg

Please note, I never said my ways were time efficient.

[shootemindehead]

Tsk tsk...just not good enough man.

*walks off, totally disillusioned*

[rongravy]

All I could think about during the original was how, if I had to be one of the pieces of that awful experiment, I'd wanna be the Asian dood at the front.
Wasn't a bad movie, by the way. Gross, but not bad.

[SymphonicX]

spose I should wade in again....

Honestly I think we all have a pretty standard marker for right and wrong and really subjective stuff like banned movies - its a grey area only if you make it that way in your head.

Its easy to look at a film (talking only about films here) and know from watching it if there was a plot or a progressing story or whatever...I'm sure all of you here could tell the difference between a well produced 2 hour pr0n movie and a movie like Bound or whatever...you know something with even the slightest attempt at subtext or meaning....and with Grotesque I can totally see why it was banned - because it completely lacked anything that sets itself apart from a 2 hour gonzo pr0n movie.

Maybe this is why most of those video nasties are readily available on DVD - why now you can get The Burning with all the wax fingers being cut off...because they, like us, would have seen the narratives and progressive nature of the content rather than it being 2 people, in a room, for 2 hours, either sh*gging, dismembering, torturing etc etc - as I say nothing setting it apart from gonzo pr0n only a few extra bucks and marginally better actors.

Just sayin' - it needs a story or there's no point. Its just absolute turgid shite which I wouldn't want a 9 year old watching by accident or any other means. At LEAST with "Nekromantic" or whatever, it has 3 acts, a narrative..blah blah...

dunno if i've really thought this through but there you go.

[Andy]

If you dont want your 9 year old kid watching it, dont leave a copy lying around your house. Parents should take more responsibility and stop looking to the government for ultimate blame.

While im not a fan of the human centipede by any means (it was a mediocre film at best) i am totally and 100% against banning ANY movie. There is nothing that qualifies somebody to tell another fully grown adult what they can and cannot watch in their own home.

Anyway, looks like the director has responded to the ban. This (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31162) actually made me laugh.

[MinionZombie]

While I can understand exactly why it got banned - and wasn't in the least bit surprised by a ban after reading the BBFC's detailed response to it - do I agree with banning films? No - if something's crap, it should be allowed to fail on it's own lack of merit, and a ban instantly creates a yearning to see what's been denied to you - it makes it more attractive - and in the age of the internet, it's incredibly easy to just go and find it anyway - so if anything you're inspiring more people to see it, than would have probably bothered watching it if it just came out normally.

When it comes to cutting stuff - I get uneasy about that, but again I can understand why some content gets cut, and other stuff doesn't ... but yeah, it makes me uneasy as a general concept.

As for The Human Centipede, here's what I thought of the first movie:
http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2011/03/double-bill-mini-musings-cenobites-and.html

The Human Centipede (First Sequence):
Trading entirely on the inventively grim title (indeed it constitutes the entire plot), Tom Six's stylish but surprisingly empty shocker isn't quite the ... *sigh* ... "torture porn" flick that you might be expecting. The idea of three people being connected mouth-to-butt by a mad doctor (who used to be the world's number one corrective surgeon for conjoined twins) is gruesome enough on its own, and as such it's mostly left up to your imagination. The really gruesome elements are inferred, rather than shown, or indeed they're hidden behind bandages.

Speaking of the demented surgeon, Dieter Laser's performance (as Dr. Heiter) is clearly the high point of the movie - it's a wonderfully disturbing projection - so it's a shame that the rest of the film doesn't match in quality or intrigue. Particularly in the third act, there were some really dumb scripting moments, and you can't help but feel that the high concept was the real attraction. The look of the film is impressively artistic, and the pace is generally quite good, but the mad doctor is lacking enough motivation, and the two girls (two thirds of the sequence) are nothing but vapid and annoying party girls.

So it's nowhere near as gross as the pitch suggests, visually at least, and while Laser's crazy surgeon makes for a genuinely arresting screen presence, the rest of the movie is sadly a bit lacking. See it for the intrigue, see it for Laser's performance, but don't expect any lasting investment.

Indeed, I'd go further now to say that beyond the aesthetic and Dieter Laser, the film is damn-near forgettable. All mouth, no trousers.

I'd read somewhere (on the Melon Farmer's website, I believe), that THC2 is all in black and white ... not that colour or black and white changes whether your characters have any purpose beyond being objects or any of the other apparent reasons why it was banned.

[SymphonicX]

Yeah the new one doesn't have Dieter Laser - which is the reason I'd never bother making an effort to see it.

Dieter Laser was......wow...in that movie. What a scary guy....they should have built upon his character - this sequel should have been a prequel about his involvement in some evil government experiments or something. He was so spot on.

Anyway, read the link MZ posted about Tom Six's response. Calling his movies "art" is a bit of a stretch! I still support the BBFC on this one - those who want to see it, will find it anyway as has been said - so the hardcore amongst us won't lose out anyway.

[Neil]

Trailer - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51082

[MinionZombie]

Trailer - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51082

Well they'll certainly be exploiting the BBFC decision to the ends of the earth, then! :p

Not a shred of footage in there though ... I wouldn't be at all surprised if the film is utter cobblers. The first was stylish, but empty and generally "meh" (aside from Dieter Lazer as the mad doctor) ... so I'm beginning to sense 'all hype' with this one. I had little interest in seeing the first, and even less in the second, but the BBFC have certainly handed them an excellent promotional tool.

[Neil]

The world premiere of The Human Centipede 2 [Full Sequence] was held at Fantastic Fest earlier tonight, and the reactions are far from positive. Following the after-screening Tweets from many critics and movie writers, the general consensus seems to be that the film is vile and disgusting, but serves little to no purpose outside of shock value. The fact of the matter is, however, that people who want to see how gross the movie is are going to go see the film regardless of the reaction. In celebration of tonight's world premiere, SlashFilm has posted the first poster for the Tom Six movie which you can check out below.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/First-Poster-For-The-Human-Centipede-2-Full-Sequence-26922.html

http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news/26922/First_Poster_For_The_Human_Centipede_2_Full_Sequen ce_1316767350.jpg

-- -------- Post added at 12:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

Oh! And on AICN...

http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproduction/original/HARRYcent.gif?1293674353

[Kaos]

Yeah, I saw the AICN graphic this morning. My wife was aghast. :elol:

[Andy]

So anybody managed to see this movie yet?

[MinionZombie]

So anybody managed to see this movie yet?

Nope.

If I was going to see it, I'd prefer to see it uncut (so as to at least see what the fuss was about) ... however I have a low level of interest (if any) in even seeing this flick - and I'd certainly not be bothered enough to go to the hassle of finding it in its uncut form. So it's a big old "meh" from me personally.

[Mike70]

If you dont want your 9 year old kid watching it, dont leave a copy lying around your house. Parents should take more responsibility and stop looking to the government for ultimate blame.

While im not a fan of the human centipede by any means (it was a mediocre film at best) i am totally and 100% against banning ANY movie. There is nothing that qualifies somebody to tell another fully grown adult what they can and cannot watch in their own home.



fuckin' hear hear! the nail has been hit on the head. i hate the "oh but the children" argument for banning anything. it is a parent's job to protect/take an interest in their child and what they are watching/getting into. not the govt's.

i'm a 41 year old adult. if i want to watch something in the privacy of my home, then no one and i mean no one, not even god himself (if he existed) has any right to tell me what i can and cannot look at. the same goes for books, art, music or any form of human artistry.

censorship is one of those hot button things for me. i bristle just at hearing the very word. people who prattle about censorship all remind me of that Whitehouse bitch in britian back in the day who ran campaigns to ban everything from doctor who (how ridiculous is that to even say out loud) to "til death do us part."

of course, at the heart of all folks who are for banning these sorts of things is the complete and total perversity known as "christian morality."

[EvilNed]

I've seen it. I'll say this; If one is in the business of actually banning films for their indecency, I can see no better candidate for a ban than this film. It is really, truly disgusting on several accounts. Tormented and twisted. Gore, blood and shit.

Spoiler ahead but just to illustrate on what level we're talking here;

A pregnant woman is fleeing from the madman "protagonist"(?) and goes into labour while running. Leaving a trail of blood behind her, she jumps into a car to escape. Before she manages to start the car, she actually gives birth to the baby, and the baby slides under the gas pedal. The fleeing woman doesn't seem to care and presses down the gas pedal, crushing the baby's head in a graphic close-up.

So yeah... That was kind of a shock.

[AcesandEights]

So yeah... That was kind of a shock.

:eek:

Good lord...that's vile.

[krakenslayer]

A pregnant woman is fleeing from the madman "protagonist"(?) and goes into labour while running. Leaving a trail of blood behind her, she jumps into a car to escape. Before she manages to start the car, she actually gives birth to the baby, and the baby slides under the gas pedal. The fleeing woman doesn't seem to care and presses down the gas pedal, crushing the baby's head in a graphic close-up.

So yeah... That was kind of a shock.

Waitaminute... Tom Six wouldn't be a pseudonym for Lloyd Kaufman would it? :p

[Andy]

Yeah i managed to catch this at a friends house and it was really disappointing, im kinda drawn to shock horror and any kind of film like that usually gets my attention and boy did this movie have the reputation but to actually see it, tom six is just trying too hard to shock and disgust his audience and theres very little else to this, the first human centipede movie was ok, i wouldnt say anything special but it had a few things going for it. The sequel pretty much has nothing though! you can almost hear tom's inner voice going "right.. ive gone this far, what else can i do that would get a reaction from people?" and thats pretty much all these is to this movie.

Movies with reputations such as this inevitably draw me as im sure they will some of you guys, like a moth to a lightbulb.. But this one really really isnt worth the watch in my opinion, your not gonna come out of it feeling any better than you went in.

The scene where the neighbour is playing his music loud and martins mum bangs her broom on the ceiling then you hear him come downstairs, and she lets him in and tells him it was martin that banged on the ceiling did make me laugh and was probably the highlight of the whole movie.